skip to main content

Callaghan Innovation - wishing it all the best.....but

Blog

Back to: Blog - Technology & Science

 

Wellington

 

I hope I’m wrong about Callaghan Innovation, and for our country’s and industry’s sake thatit is a roaring success when it stumbles into life on Feb 1.

But, the portents aren’t good – and as a solution in search of a need, instead of the otherway round – we’ll end up with a couple of years of bureaucratic confusion before eventuallygoing for a form of the Advanced Technology Institute as originally proposed by IRL.

In the meantime we’ll have a Callaghan Innovation Agency (CIA), and all the bumbling that’simplied in that.

Why the glass half empty viewpoint?

Among the things that have happened, the common knowledge at IRL and further afield, have beenthe following happenings.

  • An ATI Establishment Board (before it morphed into CI), whose chair, Sue Suckling, reportedonly and directly to Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment super minister, StevenJoyce. Not through MBIE (who weren’t involved), only to Joyce

  • A chief scienceadviser (Sir Peter Gluckman) who hasn’t been able to talk to Joyce

  • An Octobercommand that no member of the ATI establishment team or board was to have anything to with thesenior management of IRL. (Odd, presumably you’d expect such people to have the bestknowledge/overview of requirements to promote high value manufacturing)

  • An as yetnon-public business plan; and no idea how any sort of transition/transformation takes place betweenIRL to Callaghan Innovation

  • A management and governance structure that merelytransfers the original ATI establishment team to new positions – let’s call it jobs for thegirls and boys…..never, ever a good look

  • Total and utter disregard fortransparency, democracy, clarity of (desired) outcome – and the trust that goes with thoseprocesses


In short, what we have with Callaghan Innovation is a secret,ill-conceived creation of a model that’s been disproven overseas.

We don’t have anything like Taiwain’s ITRI –which has an extremely strong industry/research group hug and development of science/engineeringplatforms that will strategically support a future.

Nor Switzerland’s, nor Singapore’s, nor especially Denmark – who’s research institute’smust be wondering how we got so far away from their own model.

Now, Joyce is well-known for forming a point of view and pulling all the levers to achieve anoutcome – it’s something you can do in business (more or less).

How much has his notion that ‘innovation’ (and let’s not even begin to try and define it)is a command and control activity intersected with the law of unintended consequences?

Wow, we’ve ended up with ‘tell me exactly what it's meant to do’ Callaghan Innovation?

CI will be much more hands-on from Joyce’s point of view, but I’m afraid Steven, that’s nothow innovation works.

CI as a model is much more sand in the gearbox.

Whether it is because her background’s as an economist, but Sue Suckling’s viewpoint seems tobe that inventors/innovators/ideas people have had trouble accessing the IRL (and otheruniversity/CRI) brains who could help with their industry challenge. We’ll call it a supplyproblem.

That’s not the case – anyone with even half and idea can relatively easily, today, get thehelp and R&D expertise they need.

Providing a 0800 ‘Callaghan Innovation’ number addresses a problem that doesn’t exist. Itwill simply be another bureaucratic layer of frustration for science and industry.

But, prove me wrong CI – I’ll be happy to admit my error.

Callaghan Innovation - wishing it all the best.....but

Callaghan Innovation - wishing it all the best.....but
 
 
 
+ Text Size -
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
Original generation time 1.7854 seconds.